Homestead mailing list

[Gene GeRue <genegerue AT ruralize.com>]

> Including your right to free speech?

No, the feds need to enforce that. As citizens we are free to move about 
the country from state to state, from community to community. The right of 
free speech must move with us and must be enforced by the feds. The 
conditions of place are irrelevant to the right of free speech, except for 
the exceptions thus far decided, such as that we have no right to shout 
"Fire!" in a crowded public place.

Until Kelo, the notion of private property sat like just such a ten ton safe.
>  Most municipalites, even those who were pushing the envelope on this, 
> knew that the constitutional concept of private property loomed over 
> them.  Until now.  Now there are no restraints to abuse except local ones.

Local abuses are easier to correct than those from DC.

> Before Kelo most people of modest means were protected in their property
> because of the threat of the violation of a constitutional right.

The examples of abuse of condemnation proceedings are legion, were legion 
long before Kelo. If anything, the Kelo finding instructs localities that 
they must have a comprehensive plan. Here is what the court said:
"The city has carefully formulated a development plan that it believes will 
provide appreciable benefits to the community, including, but not limited 
to, new jobs and increased tax revenue. As with other exercises in urban 
planning and development, the city is trying to coordinate a variety of 
commercial, residential, and recreational land uses, with the hope that 
they will form a whole greater than the sum of its parts. To effectuate 
this plan, the city has invoked a state statute that specifically 
authorizes the use of eminent domain to promote economic development. Given 
the plan's comprehensive character, the thorough deliberation that preceded 
its adoption, and the limited scope of this Court's review in such cases, 
it is appropriate here, as it was in Berman, to resolve the challenges of 
the individual owners, not on a piecemeal basis, but rather in light of the 
entire plan. Because that plan unquestionably serves a public purpose, the 
takings challenged here satisfy the Fifth Amendment."
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZS.html

> Now corrupt local governments (that is to say, all of them)

If citizens allow corrupt government, then they deserve the results. The 
temptations of power are well known. If citizens choose to ignore 
Jefferson's admonition, then they suffer the consequences.

>  and the people who bribe them know that the poor and modest can't fight 
> the case and appeals.  It matters not a wit that it is harder to proceed 
> in federal courts than local courts, the poor have no means to do either.

I have not read that petitioners were people of means. Good cases are often 
taken by attorneys pro bono for the exposure. They are also fought by 
various NGOs dedicated to a cause.

> I guess, Gene, my question remains.  I imagining that you, like me and 
> most people here, are keen on property rights ... why would you feel 
> better or more secure now that the threat that attaching your property 
> though eminent domain might run afoul of your constitutional guarantee of 
> same has been effectively removed?

I don't see that as having happened. And I never said I feel better or more 
secure. I said I think that "public use" is best defined by local citizens 
rather that a far-away politico or bureaucrat.

>   And why would you want the federal protection for your rights to your 
> property turned over to local determination but not your other rights.

I have explained my reasons and I have explained how I feel that the issue 
of absolute certainty of location within the community creates different 
social conditions for real property rights than for personal rights.

>   Why do the arguments you have furthered to abdicate the enforcement of 
> one right  to the locals not apply to your other guaranteed rights as well?

I've explained that. How many paragraphs do you want? I choose to use fewer 
words. I have done so. Move on.